Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman rightly recognises the importance of carbon capture and storage. As a result, I am sure that he will welcome the announcement made in the pre-Budget report. We see considerable potential for carbon capture and storage and think that it has a significant contribution to make to helping us deal with the carbon dioxide issues that we face; it will also help our energy industry more generally.

David Taylor: I declare an interest as a member of a multi-generation sub-post office family in the village where I live. Has the Minister had a chance to read the National Consumer Council report, "Post office closures 2002 to 2006", which was critical of the closures in that period? The post office closures that were announced then did not produce a strategic reshaping of the network; rather, they hit the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. The NCC does not believe that the 95 per cent. requirement for people in rural areas to be within three miles of a post office will be adequate to prevent the chances of that from happening again. Would the Minister care to comment on that?

Patrick McFadden: The hon. Gentleman asks about extending the consultation period. As I said a few moments ago, there is a balance to be struck in doing that and lifting the uncertainty from sub-postmasters around the country. That is why we have tried to strike the balance in the way we have.
	I have certainly encouraged Post Office Ltd to engage properly with local communities. Postwatch, the consumer voice, has a critical role to play in the consultations. Local authorities, too, have a critical role in engaging with Post Office Ltd and informing it of future regeneration plans and so on, so that plans can be made as best as possible. However, we cannot escape from the fact that 4 million fewer people a week are using post offices, compared with a couple of years ago, and that the network is losing £4 million a week. We are committed to social network subsidy for the Post Office, and if that subsidy were not available, many more post offices would close. That is why we have committed £150 million a year to support the network.

John Grogan: Given that the Government intervened strongly and energetically to sort out the affairs of private company, Northern Rock, is there not a case for following that example and adopting a more even-handed approach and acting as an honest broker in this dispute? Should not the Government intervene before breakfast, intervene before lunch and intervene before dinner—in the words of a former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—to get a fair, just, negotiated settlement, not least in the interests of all the businesses that are suffering at the moment?

Douglas Carswell: Is the Secretary of State aware of the real anger felt by people in my constituency, particularly in Walton, Kirby and Clacton, about the news that their post offices and sub-post offices might be closed? Is he aware that under these proposals post offices that are paying their way, on which many older people depend, being shut?

Gordon Banks: Will my right hon. Friend confirm whether the current management of Royal Mail has his full confidence in searching for a solution to the present dispute on how it delivers a secure and solid future for the Royal Mail, its customers and its employees?

David Drew: I hear what my right hon. Friend says, but it cannot be helpful when the chief executive of Royal Mail makes the comments that he has about his own work force. Postal workers are greatly depressed about the dispute and its possible outcome. It is outrageous that people who have given their lives to the organisation are now having imposed on them changes in terms and conditions of their work that would be completely unacceptable in other sectors. Is it not about time that the Secretary of State understood what postal workers are suffering from and intervened?

John Hutton: I have had the very good fortune to discuss these issues with some of my own constituents who work for Royal Mail. I understand their concern about the future, which we all share. However, as I said in an earlier reply, it is important that we have a sensible, negotiated solution to the dispute, which I believe is perfectly possible. I have the greatest respect for staff who work in the Royal Mail—we all do; we know what an important and highly valued job they do in our constituencies—but we must not lose sight of the important fact that if the Royal Mail is going to succeed in the liberalised marketplace in which it now works, change is inevitable. We must facilitate a process of change, as the status quo is not sustainable. There will have to be changes inside the Royal Mail if it is going to have the successful future that we all want it to have. I strongly believe that the best way to progress that is through a sensible agreement.

Charles Kennedy: The Secretary of State will appreciate that an area such as mine has been particularly hammered by the dispute, because of the absolute reliance on Royal Mail not just by individuals but businesses. In welcoming what the Prime Minister said yesterday, may I draw to the Secretary of State's attention that the GP who administers the Small Isles medical practice has told me that people on those islands who have had blood tests cannot now get the results because the method of communication between the regional hospital and those islands is no longer in place? That is a desperately serious state of affairs. Even if the Government cannot intervene in the negotiations over the dispute, could they at least, in concert with the Scottish Executive, consider emergency provisions for people who are medically dependent on that service?

Philip Hollobone: As an active supporter of the east Northamptonshire branch of the Federation of Small Businesses, may I draw the Minister's attention to a recent national FSB report which disputes the Government's findings? A survey of its members found that, on average, small businesses nationally are spending as much as seven hours a week filling in forms and complying with needs of regulators. Will the Minister agree to meet representatives of the FSB and outline ways in which he can address their concerns?

Rob Marris: May I remind my right hon. Friend that when I asked the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) in the Chamber what regulations the Opposition would abolish he referred to only one—the provision for "no smoking" signs outside buildings? That was the only one that he could cite.
	The question of regulation is, however, a huge one. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the thrust of the Government's approach to it will focus not on some bonfire of regulations, but on simplification of the regulations that we have? We have overlapping regulations that are excessively complicated. We need simplification, but we still need regulation.

Mark Lazarowicz: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the recent Ofgem report on social tariffs shows that energy suppliers' take-up of social tariffs varies widely. As he knows, there is widespread consensus among non-governmental organisations working on fuel poverty issues that there needs to be much wider use of social tariffs by energy suppliers. He may be aware that the all-party group that I chair recently produced a report on the issue. Will he agree to meet me and some of the organisations involved in the sector to discuss the way forward and to ensure that the consumers interest is represented in the discussions?

Henry Bellingham: I am pleased to hear that but does the Minister agree that the two biggest challenges facing small businesses are employment regulations and tax? Has he had a chance to look at yesterday's remarks by Lord Bilimoria, the founder of Cobra Beer and a key Labour supporter? He said that investment in small businesses and entrepreneurship has been penalised by the proposed 80 per cent. increase in capital gains tax, and that it sends all the wrong signals for Government support for small firms. What representations will the Minister make to the Chancellor about that anti-business measure?

Stephen Timms: The key to continued long term improvements in UK competitiveness and productivity will be maintaining the remarkable new stability that has characterised the British economy over the past decade. We will need to continue to build on that foundation, for example, as the Chancellor announced on Tuesday, with continued investment in higher education and skills, in infrastructure and in the science base.

Harriet Harman: It is a scandal that, despite the fact that women are caring for children and elderly relatives as well as going out to work, there is a 20 per cent. gap between their income in retirement and that of men. That is unfair, bearing in mind that women are often older pensioners and live much longer. That is why we have taken action to deal with pensioner poverty, as most poor pensioners have been women. We are increasing access to the basic state pension and improving access to occupational pensions.

Harriet Harman: We had the party political point scoring at Prime Minister's questions yesterday. Having had the Punch and Judy then, we can spare the House the Judy and Judy show today. This is a statement on the business of the House, and it will be business as usual.
	Turning to the points of business that the right hon. Lady raised, on the Ministry of Justice, there is an ongoing review. There has been no announcement.  [Interruption.] The announcement was of an ongoing review and it was notified on the website. If there are any proposals for change, we rightly would expect them to be notified to the House by the Secretary of State for Justice. There are no such proposals at present; the matter is simply under review.
	The right hon. Lady mentioned the "Parliament first" rule. We in this House all think it is very important indeed that if there is information that the House should hear first, that is exactly what happens. When the House is not sitting, obviously there is not the option of a statement to the House first. I agree with all hon. Members who think that information should be given to the House first. Indeed the Prime Minister came to the House and made a statement of further information about Iraq.
	In relation to foot and mouth and bluetongue, I agree with the right hon. Lady that farmers have had a difficult summer. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs came to the House on Monday and announced a package of support for hill farmers who are the most seriously affected. I note that she has made this the subject of her Opposition day debate. If there is any further information, it will be brought to the House. This is a serious problem. We need to identify the problems, contain them and eradicate the diseases which are so damaging.
	The right hon. Lady talked about the protection of intellectual property rights. I am sure that she can raise that subject with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.
	The right hon. Lady asked about tax. As she knows, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be answering Treasury questions next Thursday, and no doubt her hon. Friends can raise those questions then.
	The right hon. Lady mentioned issues relating to the EU reform treaty and European scrutiny. There will be public confidence in how we deal with issues proposed by Europe only if there are processes in the House that we all agree are working properly, and I do not think that that is the case. The point has been raised by a number of hon. Members on many occasions, including members of the Modernisation Committee, and we shall have to look into it further to make sure that we are doing the best we can in the House to scrutinise proposals from Europe.
	The right hon. Lady referred to how the House is dealing with the European reform treaty. She will know that if the Government reach an agreement on intergovernmental issues relating to Europe it will come to the House for ratification— [Hon. Members: "That's not a referendum."] Perhaps hon. Members will let me finish. It will come to the House. It is for hon. Members to decide the amendments that they want to table and it is for the Speaker to decide which amendments he accepts.

Kate Hoey: Following on from the point of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), does the Leader of the House not think that the public will find it absolutely disgraceful that we are not having a debate on the Royal Mail dispute, so that we can put forward some of the views that are not being put forward by Adam Crozier, on his £1.3 million salary, about the deterioration of services for the public that will take place as a result of the planned changes, such as later deliveries, no Sunday collections and a cut in the pensions of our hard working postmen and women. That case has to be put in the House because our loyal postmen and women are being done down very badly by the fact that the Government are not directly intervening.

David Howarth: May we have a debate on the effective use of resources in the health service? I have been trying to discover what lies behind proposals to close Brookfields hospital in my constituency and I have found out that vast amounts of public money is lying unspent in the accounts of strategic health authorities: £960 million last year and a predicted £660 million this year. Surely it makes no sense whatsoever to close hospitals in one part of the country while vast amounts of public money is unspent in other parts.

Harriet Harman: If the hon. Gentleman wants a response from health Ministers, and the opportunity to debate and air the issues he has raised, he might consider that a very appropriate subject for a debate in Westminster Hall.

Jim Devine: May we have a debate in Government time about the lessons learned from the collapse of Farepak, the Christmas saving company, which happened this week last year? We now know that the Halifax Bank of Scotland and Farepak management met in February of last year because the company was in dire financial straits, but it kept taking money off agents until last October. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the minutes of that meeting should be put into the public domain so that the hundreds of thousands of decent, hard- working families can finally learn where their money went?

Harriet Harman: What is or is not allowed in Parliament square is a matter for the law that has been passed by the House and its independent enforcement by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. If the hon. Gentleman believes that we should change the law, he should present proposals. The issue is raised in the Green Paper entitled, "The Governance of Britain", to which he could respond.

Harriet Harman: We would all agree that all Departments, Government agencies, local government and the devolved Administrations should work to get the best possible deal to support farmers in that difficult situation and avoid what the hon. Gentleman describes as a party political football. He is right that there will be a debate next week. I am sure that the Secretary of State will be able to respond in the necessary way.

Alistair Darling: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Northern Rock plc. Before I start, however, I draw the House's attention to the fact that I have informed both the Register of Members' Interests and the Treasury's permanent secretary that, like many others, my wife and I have a mortgage with Northern Rock, but no savings or deposits.
	As I said in my written statement on Monday, Northern Rock got into difficulty following the problems triggered in the US mortgage market, which have gone on to affect the financial markets in countries all around the world. In early August, when the markets realised the extent of the problems in the US sub-prime market, they also began to have doubts about the value of other asset-backed securities. Uncertainty over which institutions were exposed and to what extent meant that institutions lent to each other at much higher rates, and in some cases stopped lending to each other altogether. The result was a large reduction of money in the market generally and an increase in the cost of borrowing, not just for those with exposure to the sub-prime market, but for all institutions.
	Those developments have had a global impact, affecting major US mortgage lenders, a major French bank and banks in Germany. The availability of credit has increased the past few weeks, so we can be more confident, but we cannot be certain when the current instability will end. Britain entered the global turbulence with a stable economy and a strong banking sector, which has experienced rapid growth, with well capitalised balance sheets. British institutions have less direct exposure to sub-prime assets and our sub-prime market share—5 per cent.—is much lower than that of the US. However, because of its business model, Northern Rock faced a particular problem. It has a large share of Britain's mortgages, but they are primarily financed through the wholesale markets, including a significant proportion from securitisation. That meant that Northern Rock was particularly vulnerable to the virtual closing of that market over the summer.
	On 14 August, the Financial Services Authority told the Bank of England and the Treasury about its concerns about Northern Rock and its vulnerability in the current market circumstances. During August it became increasingly clear that Northern Rock was having difficulty getting access to the financing that it needed and that the cost of doing so was increasing. The general situation and Northern Rock's position in particular were monitored on a daily basis. On 5 September, the Bank announced £4 billion of extra support to provide increased liquidity to the wider market. As Northern Rock's position deteriorated, it became clear that specific support was likely to be needed for it. On 13 September the Governor and the chairman of the FSA recommended that I authorise the Bank to provide special liquidity support. I agreed because I believed that that was justified.
	There are clear principles governing such support, which are set out in the memorandum of understanding between the Treasury, the Bank and the FSA that was first signed in 1997. Such support should be undertaken only when there is a genuine threat to the stability of the financial system and in order to avoid a serious disturbance in the wider economy. That was the case here. The provision of support was announced on 14 September. Although the FSA had assured the public that Northern Rock was solvent and that if depositors wanted to get their money out, they could do so, it became clear that further assurance was needed. Therefore, on 17 September, again on the advice and with the agreement of the FSA and the Bank of England, I announced that during the current instability in the financial markets, and should it prove necessary, I would put in place arrangements that would guarantee all the existing deposits in Northern Rock. That undertaking was extended on 20 and 21 September.
	The Treasury, the Bank and the FSA continue to work intensively with Northern Rock with a view to helping it to resolve the situation. Any future solution must lie with the company, but the Government have provided appropriate help and will continue to do so. As I reported to the House on Tuesday, I have extended the Government's guarantee arrangements to all new retail deposits for which Northern Rock will pay a fee, while the Bank has provided an additional loan facility, which has replaced that of lender of last resort. I have today written to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Treasury and the Select Committee on Public Accounts setting out more details. I am also publishing that letter and placing a copy in the Library of the House.
	There are clearly lessons to be learned from what happened to Northern Rock and the wider instability across the world. The responsibility to minimise risks and prevent problems from happening in a particular bank lies first and foremost with the directors acting on behalf of its shareholders. That is their clear duty. It is the job of the financial authorities to set the policy and the regulatory framework in which institutions and markets work. Let me remind the House of those responsibilities. As the House knows, the Bank of England has complete independence in monetary policy. Its second core purpose is financial stability, a role that it discharges on a daily basis. The FSA, also independent, is responsible for the supervision of individual firms such as Northern Rock. Because of the importance of the financial system for the stability of the economy as a whole and because of the potential impact on the Exchequer in ensuring stability, the Government are rightly also involved. The Treasury is responsible for the overall legislative framework and I am accountable to Parliament.
	It is right that the Bank and FSA should continue with those responsibilities. The model is one that others around the world are now following, but we need to review how the framework has operated and put in place whatever practical improvements are needed. As the FSA has said, it is reviewing its own lessons for itself. I look forward to its conclusions early next year. We need to make more reforms to prevent problems from happening internationally and in Britain. First, when the financial stability forum reports to Finance Ministers at the G7 in Washington next week, I will urge faster rapid implementation of international agreements on solvency, accelerated work on international standards for regulating liquidity, more transparent information on credit ratings and action to improve the transparency of off-balance sheet vehicles. Secondly, I will propose an International Monetary Fund and Financial Stability Forum early warning system to strengthen financial sector surveillance and to identify risks to stability and co-ordinated regulatory responses to them. Thirdly, I can report a European agreement this week to strengthen arrangements for ensuring financial stability in Europe and increase cross-border management.
	It is important that regulators focus on liquidity as well solvency. Here at home, the FSA will shortly set out proposals for a review of the UK liquidity regime. As the Governor has said, all central banks face problems in providing support to banks in difficulty in a world where markets rightly expect high levels of disclosure and transparency. I can therefore confirm that if it proves necessary to clarify in Europe the legal and practical issues surrounding the way in which such support is provided and disclosed to protect financial stability, we will work with other European countries to provide that certainty. We will now review whether rules about swift takeovers of banks need to be changed.
	When problems occur, however, we need to have a system in place that is clear and which reassures depositors. We will introduce legislation in the next Session to establish a new regime. With the FSA and the Bank, I am proposing the principles for the new regime in a discussion document published today. The new regime would mean that depositors would be insulated from a bank that had failed and would provide them with both greater compensation and certainty that their compensation could be paid out quickly. As a first stage, the FSA has decided that the financial services compensation scheme covers 100 per cent. of deposits up to £35,000, but I have made it clear that that is just an initial step towards a more comprehensive change.
	We will continue to work closely with the banking industry, consumer groups and others to agree the new regime, and I hope that there will be cross-party consensus on it. We must all, internationally and domestically, consider what lessons there are to be learned from the summer's events, and if needed I will take action. The changes that we will make will strengthen our reputation as the world's leading international financial centre, and will be founded on our commitment to maintain a strong and stable economy. I commend this statement to the House.

Alistair Darling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what I take it was meant to be helpful advice, at least in respect of some of his comments. Let me deal with the points that he has raised.
	As I told the House in my statement, it first became apparent to the FSA and the Bank in the middle of August that Northern Rock had difficulties. Between then and Northern Rock formally asking the Bank for facilities, a great deal of effort was made to try to help Northern Rock to resolve the position. The position was monitored on a daily basis, and Northern Rock was in close contact with the FSA, the Bank and the Treasury. During that period, a number of alternative courses of action were looked at, but unfortunately they did not work.
	The problem that Northern Rock faced was that, because it had to get new financing facilities on a pretty regular basis and because the market could spot that fairly quickly, it became apparent that it was in difficulties. It could not therefore get access to funds, and the price that it was being charged was going up. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that we did everything that we could to try to resolve the situation without special support becoming necessary. Eventually, however, it became obvious that unless special facilities were made available, the bank would be in very great difficulty indeed.
	That brings me to the second point that the hon. Gentleman raised, on help for banks. The Governor did not say that the Bank was unable to help Northern Rock because of current legislation. What he was talking about was whether that help could be given in a covert way as opposed to being completely open about it. I am bound to say to the House that this is a real problem. In this country—and perhaps right across the world—we have been moving towards more transparency and openness, which is generally a pretty good thing. The difficulty was that, because Northern Rock's trading position had deteriorated so rapidly, it was advised by its own legal advisers—for perfectly understandable reasons—that it would have to issue a profits warning. It was also coming to the view that, because of its listing requirements, the fact that it was about to get facilities from the Bank of England would probably have to be disclosed. The Governor was also saying that the current legislation might require that disclosure. In addition, he made the point that, if it had been possible to arrange for another bank to come in, part of the takeover code might make that difficult over a weekend. I am looking at all these things, and if we need to change the legislation, we certainly will.
	When we were discussing these matters prior to the Bank's support being made available, I was pretty sure that it would get leaked, and I was absolutely right. The House will know that the story was broadcast by the BBC the night before the formal announcement was made, which is what led to the difficulties over the next few days. We need to look at that, because it is in the interests of the financial system not only in this country but across the world that, if central banks need to intervene, they should be able to do so in a way that is sensible.
	The hon. Gentleman raised a number of other points. The Chairman of the Treasury Committee has written to me asking about the letters that I have received from the Governor and the FSA, and I will respond to my right hon. Friend before I appear before the Select Committee later this month. Yes, we have extended the guarantee, because I believe that it is right to help Northern Rock to have a period in which it can explore the options available to it, with a view to resolving these difficulties.
	On arrangements between the Bank, the FSA and the Treasury, ultimately, I am responsible to this House for whatever they do; that is part of being Chancellor. I hesitate to agree, however, if the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should move towards a situation in which the Bank or the FSA were merged, which would not be the right thing to do, as the institution would become unmanageable. If the question is whether I think that improvements should be made and that we should look further into the arrangements between the Treasury, the Bank and the FSA, of course that is the case. We do need to learn the lessons.
	Finally, I am consulting on the protection of consumers. Having had some experience with courts in relation to consultation, I put out some general principles because the law appears to be that, if Ministers consult and then go on to close off or close down some of the options, we have to start all over again—and I do not want to get myself into that position.
	In conclusion, there are clearly lessons to be learned from what happened with Northern Rock, but as I have said on many occasions over the past few weeks, we benefit from having a strong economy and a generally strong banking sector, which I believe will enable us to get through these difficulties and maintain our reputation as the world's leading financial centre.

Vincent Cable: I thank the Chancellor for making his statement. He could have hidden behind his Tuesday written statement and the pre-Budget report, but he has come before the House now, which is good. I am afraid that that is the only positive thing that I want to say, because this statement reeks of complacency. Frankly, the Government have become complicit in large-scale irresponsible lending by the same management—and it continues even today—in what amounts to little short of a banking scam.
	It has already been said that financial turbulence has existed in the financial community internationally throughout history, but this is the first time since the collapse of Overend, Gurney and Co. in 1866 that we have had a run on the system. The Chancellor talked about the business model, so does he agree with the FSA that that model was, in its words, "extreme"? This was a bank that was doubling its mortgage lending in six months and taking 20 per cent. of the market, on the back not of depositors but of large-scale rapid securitisation into markets, which became discriminating and pulled the plug on it.
	The Chancellor said in his Tuesday statement that the bank had "very little exposure" to the sub-prime market directly, but is he aware that, indirectly, it was forced to issue a statement on 14 September acknowledging that £600 million of its assets—30 per cent. of its shareholders' funds—were of questionable provenance? I know that there has been a postal strike, but why was that information not communicated to the Treasury, which seemed to be unaware of it?
	Worse, is the Chancellor aware that the same lending practices are continuing today? A member of my Treasury team, Lord Oakeshott, rang the bank yesterday and made inquiries about its mortgage opportunities. As we would expect, he is someone of good credit standing, but the terms that he was offered were quite extraordinary. He was offered 127 per cent. of the value of the house, including the roll-up of the arrangement fee—five to six times his income—and 30 per cent. of the loan was to be unsecured. I do not know whether that is what the Chancellor meant when he talked about a return to old-fashioned lending practices. In the current economic circumstances and the warnings about house prices from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, most reasonably cautious bankers would say that that borders on the insane. It is happening because the Government are underwriting the bank. That is precisely what the Governor of the Bank of England warned of when he talked about moral hazard.
	Will the Chancellor tell us how much taxpayers' money is exposed to this bank? I believe that there is £11 billion in lending and £23 billion in guarantees, so we are talking about a sum of money in one bank that is roughly equivalent to annual spending on the armed forces. When the Chancellor agreed to the effective nationalisation of the liabilities of this bank, why was the management—including the chief executive, who has been paid £10 million in five years for taking his bank on to the rocks, and the directors, including the ubiquitous Wanless—not sacked? I would include the FSA, which has admitted that in 18 months it did nothing to check the bank.
	We all understand that once the run had started, the Chancellor had no alternative but to guarantee deposits, as opposed to the institution and the shareholders, and I am sure that that was right, but why is he now extending that guarantee to new depositors? Does that not encourage irresponsible lending and is it not unfair on other banks that are acting responsibly? Is it not even more unfair on pensions institutions, which, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) reminded us yesterday, do not have such a guarantee?
	My concluding point is that this is not just a passing embarrassment. It is potentially a tragedy for the 5,000 or more people in Newcastle whose livelihoods depend on the bank, but it is also a scandal in which substantial numbers of people in the financial community are heavily involved. When the Chancellor has taken the necessary prudential action, will he have a full independent—

Peter Atkinson: The Chancellor will accept, however, that there is widespread concern and anger in the north-east at the way in which the affair was handled. In particular, what provoked the Bank of England to announce that Northern Rock was looking for help? The European Central Bank manage to rescue—I think—two German banks and a French bank without a similar panic. I am at least grateful that the Chancellor appreciates the importance of the bank to the north-east economy and to many of my constituents, who, like those of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), want to see the bank rise again. As the Chancellor said, the order book is strong. We will note the complete lack of support from the Liberal Democrat spokesman for the bank and the people who work in it in the north-east.

Fraser Kemp: My apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for being a little late for the opening of the statement. I was meeting representatives of the staff at Northern Rock.
	The decisions that my right hon. Friend has taken are welcomed by people in the north-east, as they have given sufficient breathing space to the company so that it is not bounced into a decision or a sale that would prove unsatisfactory in the short and long term. One of the major considerations in the strategic decision that the bank has to make should be the future of the staff; the many thousands who work in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) and for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), as well as those seeking the 2,000 additional jobs at a development at Rainton Bridge in my constituency. My right hon. Friend's decisions have allowed a more rational approach to be taken, rather than allowing the bank to be sold off to a hedge fund, which could have happened within a short period.

Lords amendments considered.
	Before Clause 3
	 Lords amendment: No. 1

John Healey: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	I welcome the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) to the Front Bench and to the Dispatch Box again after last night. During consideration of the Bill, he has moved from the Back Benches to the Front Bench and has seen it through every stage, as has the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). They have lived with the Bill for longer than I have and I look forward to their contributions.
	Lords Amendment No. 1 would amend section 21 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, to disqualify a person from being the Mayor or an assembly member if they had been Mayor twice before. This would have the effect of restricting the Mayor to two terms of office. The purpose is clear; they cannot beat Ken Livingstone at the ballot box, so they are trying to bar him from standing at all. It should be for Londoners to decide whether they want Ken Livingstone to continue to serve as their London Mayor, not MPs from all parts of the UK and certainly not members of the unelected House in another place. We do not agree with the Tories and the Liberal Democrats on this and we will not accept the amendment.
	The amendment goes right to the heart of the GLA's constitution and its key principle of a strong executive Mayor whose democratic mandate and political legitimacy is derived from direct elections. The amendment and the change, as put together by an alliance of Tories and Liberals in the other place, challenges one of the underlying constitutional principles of British political life, namely, that there should be no term limits on any elected representatives to any political office. That applies to MPs, councillors and members of the devolved Administrations, all of whom can serve for as long as the electorate lets them.
	I am not alone in arguing this. In Committee, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) argued forcefully that
	"we have to accept that the whole principle of term limits is alien to the British constitution."  ——[Official Report, Greater London Authority Public Bill Committee, 18 January 2007; c. 329.]
	The issue has been well debated in another place and here, and I am aware of the arguments of those who favour term limits for the mayor. They have argued that term limits would provide an important check on an office-holder who yields considerable executive power when in office. They have argued also that it would help the office to be refreshed and reinvigorated regularly, but these arguments do not stand up when subject to scrutiny.
	There is a tendency to think that, because the US president and the elected mayors of some US cities have term limits, the Mayor of London should do too. But the electoral arrangements for the office of Mayor of London need to reflect both London's particular circumstances and the wider political and democratic culture in this country. I strongly believe that the regular elections for Mayor every four years under the GLA Act already provide a strong check on an incumbent Mayor. Furthermore, unlike some American cities, London is not a one-party city where a favoured candidate can be shoed into office and remain Mayor for life.
	First, the electoral arrangements in place for the Mayor under the GLA Act require that a successful candidate have the support of the majority of voters. Secondly, politics in London is and always has been highly competitive. Finally, given the high national profile of the Mayor of London, all major political parties would naturally and normally want to ensure that they have at least a credible candidate standing on their behalf. These factors together ensure that each mayoral election campaign is hard fought and each campaign gives a fresh mandate to the post of mayor, whether or not it goes to the incumbent.

David Evennett: My hon. Friend is making a sound and sensible speech. Londoners want there to be checks and balance and for power to be devolved from central Government to the GLA and Mayor, and then down to the boroughs. Surely that is what we should all be supporting.

Simon Burns: I do not wish to upset my hon. Friend, but I should mention that the founding fathers had no view on the subject. This was a rather nasty proposal made by the Republicans in the 1950s because Franklin Roosevelt had broken the tradition of serving two terms and had been elected to his fourth term, and they wanted to ensure that no Democrat ever did so again.

John Healey: The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) set out some general concerns and arguments that he and others have rehearsed during the course of the Bill about the proper balance of power between the Mayor and the assembly within the Greater London Authority. There are measures in the Bill to reinforce the hand of the assembly in carrying out its proper scrutiny role in relation to the Mayor. There is the introduction of confirmation hearings and the requirement for the Mayor to have regard to the responses that the assembly may make to consultations and strategies that the Mayor proposes. There is the capacity to amend the budget, which we shall discuss before too long. The Bill is also about building on what has been a successful policy of a strong executive Mayor for our capital city. I make no apologies for that.
	The Liberal Democrats and the Tories, having voted in the other place to try to keep Ken Livingstone out of office, now seem rather embarrassed by the actions of their colleagues in the other place. There has been a good deal of squirming and swivelling on the Front Benches this afternoon. I look forward to seeing how they decide to vote. It is clear from the Conservative Front Bench that the hon. Gentleman has comprehensively disowned the arguments and stance of his colleagues in the upper House. In some ways that gives a new meaning to the process of ping pong between the two Houses. We have a ping pong of Tory policy on this Bill.
	In January the official Front Bench position of the Conservatives was set out by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove). He said,
	"any attempt to call for term limits will inevitably be seen as an attempt to clip Ken's wings rather than ensure that the principle applies impartially to the mayoral office...we do not believe in term limits in principle or for the Mayor of London."— [Official Report, Greater London Authority Public Bill Committee, 18 January 2007; c. 329,331]
	By June the official Conservative Front Bench position was set out by Baroness Hanham. She said:
	"The office of Mayor in this country is now the nearest thing we have to a dictator...the Mayor should be entitled to run for only two terms of office".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 19 June 2007; Vol. 693, c. 115.]
	Clearly, they had come to the conclusion that they could not beat Ken, so they must ban him. I am sorry that we shall not have the benefit of the views of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) on this matter, as he is not in the Chamber at present.
	The argument and the position of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) are not strengthened by a special get-out clause for Ken, allowing him to stand this time, but to impose the principle of fixed term limits for the Mayor of London in future. An incumbent Mayor should be able to seek re-election on the basis of his track record and it should be the electorate—in this case Londoners across the capital city—who have the right to reject or elect him to serve a further term.

John Healey: My hon. Friend is right. Shortly we shall see the decisions that all hon. Members, particularly those on the Opposition Front Bench, make in voting.
	My essential argument is that it remains rightly for the electorate to make this decision. It remains for the incumbent Mayor to stand on the basis of his track record. It remains for Londoners, not Members of this House or the other place, to make this decision. That is the principle that sits at the heart of elected office at all levels in this country.
	I welcome the brief intervention and contribution from the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field). I have long experience of debating a number of matters with him and he is always the voice of reason of the Conservative party. He is right that we have no tradition of fixed terms in this country. I welcome his promise of support for us in the Lobbies on this matter, and I hope that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) will do so too.
	 Lords amendment disagreed to.
	Before Clause 12
	 Lords amendment No. 2

John Healey: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment.
	The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) touched on the question of the budget and the budget-making process and powers. I can understand the superficial appeal of this amendment. It is reasonable to say that to a detached observer it may seem only fair that an assembly should be able to exercise its power to amend the Mayor's final draft consolidated budget by simple majority rather than the two-thirds majority currently required. However, the principle of the two thirds majority goes to the heart of the governance of the GLA—a governance and a model that has served London well since its introduction. I shall explain to the House why that principle is so important.
	The amendment cuts directly across the principle of a strong executive Mayor and an assembly holding him to account for his actions through effective scrutiny. The budget plays a central role in this model. It allows the Mayor to propose a funding package to implement his policies, priorities and proposals. It allows the assembly to amend only if a broad consensus—in other words, two thirds of assembly members—are minded to do so. It is an important check and balance on the Mayor. It ensures that he cannot take the assembly for granted in proposing his annual budget, but it is also a clear signal to the assembly that it must work together to amend the Mayor's budget proposals formally.
	I was glad to see that that approach was endorsed by Lord Heseltine in his recent taskforce reports published in June. He recommended that city Mayors
	"should be subject to loose scrutiny by the Assembly, who would require a two thirds majority to block executive actions."
	The GLA budget-making process is based exactly on that principle and approach. The Mayor first presents the assembly with a draft budget, which it may amend by a simple majority, and then a final draft budget, which it can amend by a two-thirds majority. That allows the assembly to exert real influence over the Mayor in terms of his budget priorities—influence which the GLA itself acknowledges has saved more than £125 million by reining in, in their terms, the Mayor's budget proposals.
	In contrast, to allow the assembly to amend the final budget by a simply majority would in effect mean the assembly, not the Mayor, would routinely set the GLA budget. It would fundamentally weaken the Mayor's position, which may indeed be the hidden purpose of the amendment, and it risks a complete disconnect, therefore, between the budget and the Mayor's priorities. If hon. Members pause and consider such a position, it is clear that that risks deadlock between the assembly and the Mayor. It risks conflict and an impasse which would be bad for the GLA, for London and for Londoners.
	The debate in the other place has been helpful. It has shed important light on how the budget process has been handled in city hall to date, and on two commonly held misconceptions about the role of the assembly in the budget-making process. The first misconception is that assembly members cannot vote in favour of specific amendments because in doing so they would be voting to accept other parts of the Mayor's final draft budget with which they might disagree. That argument fails to take sufficient account of the provisions of the original Greater London Authority Act 1999. Schedule 6 of the Act makes it clear that the assembly must approve the Mayor's final draft budget, with or without amendment, with a two-thirds majority needed to make any amendment. The Act could not be clearer about the assembly's statutory duties in setting the annual budget. Assembly members have no option to "reject" the Mayor's final draft.
	The second misconception seems to be that the assembly can amend only the final draft of the GLA consolidated budget, not the component budgets of which it is comprised. Let me reiterate the explanation and the assurance that we tried to give in the other place. The assembly may, if it chooses, amend any one or more of the final draft component budgets—the budgets of the Mayor, the assembly and the four functional bodies. In so doing, it can amend the final draft GLA consolidated budget, too.
	Hitherto, the annual GLA budget-setting process has not worked in that way. The assembly has voted instead on broad packages of amendments to the consolidated budget as a whole, proposed by each of the main parties; in effect, the assembly votes to accept or reject an alternative budget rather than seeking to amend the Mayor's final draft. That approach is perfectly valid, although I think the House appreciates that it is not one that readily lends itself to cross-party agreement. It should come as little surprise, therefore, that the assembly has not, to date, secured a two-thirds majority for change. However, it is open to the assembly to approach its role in that way—differently from how it has approached it in the past—and to make the most of its existing powers by forging coalitions of common interest to amend the budget. Surely that is the right way forward—not making fundamental changes to the successful Greater London Authority model, not blurring the currently clear division between executive and scrutiny functions and not, in effect, allowing the assembly to set the budget, thus risking deadlock between the Mayor and the assembly.
	I hope that the debate this afternoon will help to illuminate further some of the misconceptions and that Members will appreciate that the budget-making process, as set out, is a central part of the model in the 1999 Act. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed to a vote, but if it is I ask the House to disagree.

Bob Neill: I shall make a little progress before I indulge the hon. Gentleman.
	It is important that the system is transparent to electors. The average elector thinks the current system is manifestly absurd. The last two of the Mayor's budgets were passed having lost 16 to nine in the assembly. If we asked any citizen of the UK where someone could lose 16 to nine and still win, the answer would be that the only place that could happen would be city hall and the only person who could do it would be the Mayor of London, who had much enjoyment sitting in the gallery shouting, "Passed", every time the assembly defeated one of his propositions. That is the type of jiggery-pokery that brings politics into contempt and disrepute. People see their elected representatives in the assembly, who have as good a mandate as the Mayor, in effect, emasculated. That is not healthy or sensible governance.

Mark Field: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Of course, there are many examples across the country of those in coalition local authorities working well together. However, there are other examples of where such arrangements have not worked well and where the situation is much more unstable—not least, obviously, where elections take place annually, rather than every four years.
	As someone who lives in the city of Westminster—as other hon. Members do, and the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) is here—I know that we council tax payers in Westminster now find the more than half of our council tax is due to the mayoral precept. Yet the Mayor is responsible for cleaning not a single street, emptying not a single bin or running not a single school or social services department. That enormous amount of money is spent in what we regard to a large extent as a fairly unaccountable way, because of the nature in which the system works for the GLA. That is the reason why we would like a simple two-thirds majority to be used, and I hope that that case was made very powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill).
	The Government are almost trying to get a double lock. Of course, the whole system for the GLA was set up to ensure that there was not a single majority party. My own party won nine of the 14 first-past-the-post seats at the last GLA elections and the Labour party won five seats at that juncture, compared to eight and six in the first elections in 2000. As a result, a lock was put in place, with 11 of the members being on a top-up proportional representation basis from the Liberal Democrats, the Green party and UKIP or Veritas. The lock was designed to ensure that no party had a majority, yet the two-thirds arrangements make it almost impossible for a sensible discussion to take place with any Mayor who digs his heels in on budgetary matters.
	Given the arrangements for proportional representation in the GLA, a simple majority would be a sensible way forward. That would not necessarily lead to deadlock. Inevitably it would require a Mayor to slash certain aspects of his budget, but that would be done through the usual negotiations in politics. That would be an acceptable way forward for the people of London.
	The biggest concern of many of my constituents is the budgetary considerations of the mayoralty, which are getting out of control. It would be undesirable for more than half the council tax of other London boroughs to be in the hands of a largely unaccountable GLA and mayoralty. We want to consider other issues related to the powers of the mayoralty, which we discussed earlier. We hope the Government will ensure that there is a proper democratic safeguard for budgetary arrangements in the GLA.

John Healey: We have reached a group of amendments that the Government tabled in the other place in response to the debate that took place there and in this House. The amendments constitute useful additions and, in some places, important strengthening of the provisions. I pay tribute to hon. Members in both Houses who helped us frame them and I look forward to discussing them this afternoon.
	I shall deal first with the amendments that relate to health. Amendment No. 3 inserts the London boroughs and the City of London into the list of bodies and persons whose role in implementing the health inequalities strategy the Mayor must describe. Inclusion of the boroughs in the list also results in their being consulted by the Mayor during the early rather than the final stages of developing the strategy. That is sensible, because they have an important role to play in helping pursue the strategy.
	Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 seek to improve the drafting of the provisions about general health determinants in proposed new section 309F(5).
	Amendment No. 7 is a minor drafting change, which simplifies the process of consultation on the Mayor's health inequalities strategy.
	Let me consider the amendments on housing. The Bill already contains provisions that require the Mayor to consult the London boroughs, the Corporation of London and any other person who is considered appropriate on the London housing strategy. That is in line with arrangements for other London strategies for which the Greater London Authority Act 1999 provides. However, uniquely, delivery of the London housing strategy will be heavily dependent on the Housing Corporation and registered social landlords. Amendment No. 8 therefore introduces an explicit requirement for the Mayor to consult the Housing Corporation and bodies that represent registered social landlords on a new or revised London housing strategy.
	I hope that the amendments make sense. It is clear to me that they will improve the process of preparing and delivering the strategy and I commend them to the House.

Bob Neill: The Minister and I are in accord on the amendments and I am grateful to him for the spirit in which he moved them. I agree that they are sensible and improve the Bill. They attracted support from all quarters when they were discussed previously.
	I highlight amendment No. 3 because I especially welcome the recognition of the role of the London boroughs in health matters. As I said in an earlier debate, it is important to stress the importance of partnership between the Mayor and the boroughs from the earliest possible stage. I wish that the Mayor would sometimes recognise that as much the amendments do. However, given the spirit in which the amendments have been moved, we are happy to accept them.

John Healey: We propose a number of amendments to the climate change clauses, following valuable scrutiny of the Bill in the other place. They are intended to sharpen the consideration and priority that the Greater London authority gives to climate change in exercising its functions.
	I shall try to deal with the amendments fairly briefly. Among the most significant is amendment No. 18, which requires that in considering whether or how to exercise the authority's general power, the Mayor must have regard to the effect that that would have on climate change and its consequences in general and global terms, as opposed to only in relation to Greater London. In view of the nature of climate change, I think Members in all parties will accept that it stands to reason that the Mayor should have regard to climate change issues beyond the boundaries of the Greater London area.
	Amendment No. 19 requires the Mayor, when exercising the authority's general power, to do so in the way that is best calculated to contribute to the mitigation of or adaptation to climate change in the United Kingdom.
	Amendment No. 20 introduces a new clause placing a duty on the Mayor to have regard to climate change and the consequences of climate change in either preparing or reviewing his various strategies. Amendments Nos. 23 and 29 give the Mayor the flexibility to go beyond national policy on climate change mitigation, while ensuring that his strategy is not inconsistent with national policies. The amendments will also require the Mayor to act within the boundaries of national energy policy objectives, although the use of the word "objectives" underlines that we are seeking the Mayor's assistance with high-level goals of energy policy such as security of supply and more competitive energy markets, rather than his assistance or conformity with specific national policy measures.
	Amendments Nos. 24, 25, 26 and 28 require that the London climate change mitigation and energy strategy should contain information on levels of relevant emissions and include the Mayor's proposals and policies for minimising emissions of other significant greenhouse substances in addition to carbon dioxide.
	Amendment No. 27 requires that, in setting out the policies and proposals in the strategy for supporting innovation and encouraging investment in energy technologies in Greater London, the Mayor must have regard to the desirability of advancing energy technologies that involve the emission of lower levels of substances that contribute to climate change. We recognise that the Mayor is likely to want to focus on low carbon technologies. After all, carbon dioxide is the major contributor to climate change, but we want to keep open the possibility that he might also support technologies that are important to other energy goals.
	I commend the amendments to the House.

Bob Neill: Suffice it to say that we agree with the Minister and have nothing to add.
	 Lords amendment agree d to .
	 Lords amendment No. 31 agreed to.
	Schedule 1
	 Lords amendment No. 32

Bill Rammell: Yes, I believe that that clarity does exist. One of the bodies that has been particularly pressing us on this issue is the Association of Colleges, which represents colleges throughout the country. The last time we discussed the Bill, it was satisfied with the changes we had made.
	However, the amendments now proposed by the Government go further still. They propose that the Bill requires the LSC to give notice to the Secretary of State before exercising any of the statutory intervention powers. It would not be appropriate to specify in statute which Secretary of State the LSC should notify, but it is likely that in most circumstances that notice would be given to the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills and, where the education or training of 16 to 19 year olds was affected, the notice would be copied to the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families.
	At that point, if the Secretary of State considered that what the LSC was proposing to do was inappropriate, he would be able to take action using, as appropriate, his powers under either proposed section 56C of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, or section 25 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000. The process for intervention would enable a governing body that considered that the LSC was not following its published statement about how it would exercise its statutory intervention powers to make a complaint to the LSC. If the governing body was not satisfied with the response, it could set out its concerns in writing to the Secretary of State. That gives a significant degree of further reassurance.
	I also want to give the House a commitment today that where the Secretary of State received notice of the LSC's intention to exercise its statutory intervention powers, he would write to local MPs, notifying them of the situation. That would be done on a personal basis, to protect those institutions where the possibility of intervention was not in the public domain.
	The amendment that we are proposing and the commitment I have given directly address the issues raised in another place. They enhance the accountability that the LSC already has. They make it clear to Parliament and the further education system that Ministers will be keeping a watching brief on situations where serious action in relation to a particular provider might be necessary, and they ensure that hon. Members will be aware of such situations where particular provision is in, or serves, their constituencies.
	We have reached a sensible position. We must retain the power to intervene through the LSC in extremis. We have listened and responded to concerns, and I hope that what we are now considering will command support across the House.

John Hayes: I thought long and hard about what to say this afternoon, and I was mindful of the fact that it is never wise to be too extravagant in victory. Equally, however, neither the House nor the Minister—and not even you, Madam Deputy Speaker—would expect my moment in the sun to be entirely fleeting.
	Benjamin Franklin said:
	"You must not, when you have gained a victory, use any triumphing or insulting expression, nor show too much pleasure; but endeavour to console your adversary, and make him less dissatisfied with himself, by every kind and civil expression, that may be".
	To start in that vein, may I say that throughout the proceedings, the Minister has shown courtesy, diligence and a mind open to the suggestions put by the Opposition? We have had a continuing dialogue, which seems to have begun a long time ago. Indeed, the Bill began its passage early in the year, so this has been a long journey but a not entirely tortuous one; it has been more "Three Men in a Boat"—at least, two men and a lady in a boat—than "Heart of Darkness". It has not been a dreadful journey into the unknown, but a journey to a destination that is better than we feared when we embarked upon it.
	I shall say a few words about the details of the amendments before us. But first I must explain that we remain convinced that the Bill is a missed opportunity to implement the structural changes advocated by Lord Leitch. Of course the Minister knows that, and would expect me to repeat that view. However, we have reached a more desirable outcome than we might have done.
	In part, as the Minister has graciously acknowledged both today and on several previous occasions, that is because of the constructive opposition from the Conservatives and the other parties, which have also played a part in this process. It is also because of the work done in the other place, where a measured and well-informed debate about the Bill has taken place. I pay tribute to Baroness Morris of Bolton for the role that she has played in reminding the Minister that although the other place can, on occasion, be stubborn, it is so in the interests of what is right and appropriate. The House is at its best when Bills are improved by careful scrutiny and when the Opposition are listened to. Throughout the passage of the Bill, that has been the case.
	I shall not stray too far from the amendments, because you will not allow me to, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want briefly to say that the proposals for foundation degrees have been improved because of the work that has been done across the Chamber on articulation agreements, taking account of the worries that universities have had about possible repercussions. We have reached a settlement on that, of which we can all be proud.
	The benefits of this constructive approach have been demonstrated again this afternoon in the form of the Government amendment. The original version of the Bill would have granted sweeping new powers to the Learning and Skills Council to intervene in further education colleges. I raised that on Second Reading with the then Secretary of State, who has now moved on to other things—I will not say greater things. At that stage the Secretary of State said that he did not think that the powers would be used anyway, as they had not been used in their current form. We did not think that was good enough. Throughout Committee and in the other place we pressed Ministers to mitigate the powers, in the interests both of colleges and of proper parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.
	The response to those concerns finds form in the Government amendment. It will mean that to intervene, the LSC must have the express permission of the Secretary of State. That means that people in this House will be accountable for decisions made in that regard, as we feared that, under the original form of the Bill, they might not have been. Moreover, the LSC will report annually on how their intervention powers have been used, and that report will be subject to appropriate scrutiny. Furthermore, the Minister has confirmed that at any stage during the process, if any individual feels that the powers have not been used reasonably or appropriately, the Secretary of State will be able to intervene and stop the process—at its beginning, middle or end. That is, in effect, a right of appeal, and I felt that that was important.
	In addition, I am assured by the Minister in private discussions and in writing that the powers are not an extension of existing powers. There was a fear expressed in Committee and elsewhere that the new powers went wider than the current powers of the Secretary of State. The Minister assures me in his letter of 26 September that that is not the case. The provisions merely clarify the existing scope of powers that are in the hands of the Secretary of State. That is a great relief to colleges and others who felt that the provisions might be applied more widely to college managers and others, even college lecturers against whom people took a dislike. I understand that that was never the intention, but it was important that the Minister had the good grace and good sense to put that in writing. We end with an amendment that reassures those in the sector that this is not a plan to impose on them even more micro-management than already exists, which we resist today as we have always resisted it.
	We do not want to be too friendly; there must be some theatre and drama in our exchanges. People must know that there is a tangible difference between the Conservative approach to further education and that of the Government. So let me say now that we believe passionately in the independence of colleges. This will reassure colleges that these powers are not as draconian as they once seemed. It will also reassure hon. Members of all political parties that they have the opportunity to hold Ministers to account for the way in which these matters are dealt with. That second issue deserves just as much air time, because this House takes its responsibilities in those regards very seriously.
	Taken together, the amendments and the further written assurance of the Minister represent a significant change of direction. They mean, in effect, that the LSC will be unable to intervene without the approval of the Secretary of State. I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification. Finally I quote from his letter:
	"the Bill does not empower the LSC to intervene in ways the Secretary of State cannot currently do...the LSC would not be able to direct a governing body for example to dismiss a senior post-holder".
	That assurance summarises and typifies the changes that have been made through the amendments.
	I know that my colleagues in this place welcome the amendments and the tone that the Minister has adopted in introducing them, and I anticipate, although I have no authority to insist on it, that my colleagues in the other place will take a similar view.

Sarah Teather: I begin, as other Members have done, by thanking the Minister for the way he has worked through the Bill. I have sat through proceedings on many other Bills in which Ministers trenchantly dug in their heels on irrelevant points, so I pay tribute to his willingness to listen, clarify and amend at all stages, including in Committee. The Bill that left the Committee was a grand improvement on the measure that first came to us from the Lords and the amendments proposed today are a considerable move forward. I thank the Minister, too, for making his civil servants available for meetings to discuss the Bill and for attending such meetings himself.
	The Lords were right to reject the clause twice in its previous form. I was concerned that it allowed the Learning and Skills Council—an entirely undemocratic body subject to no form of parliamentary scrutiny—to force a private institution to initiate dismissal proceedings against senior staff, even though the LSC may be but one of the bodies providing funding for the institution concerned. I had grave concerns about that, and I pay tribute to our colleagues in the other place for pressing the Government on the issue, so that we now have an amendment that is a considerable improvement.
	I continue to question the need for the clause, especially given the fact that the Secretary of State has never used the powers. However, we have moved a long way since the first draft of the provision, and that has met most of my concerns.
	The Minister did not address my principal concern in his opening speech, and I hope that he might clarify it in his winding-up remarks. As I said on Report, after the changes in the machinery of government, we expect the responsibility for funding 16-to-19 education to move to the Department for Children, Schools and Families and local authorities, rather than being channelled through the Learning and Skills Council. Therefore, the LSC will not be the funding body for an enormous number of colleges, so it would be an inappropriate regulator. It would be highly inappropriate to give the LSC the power to intervene in such a way.
	The Minister assured me in private that he was willing to make it clear on the record that further legislation would be needed when those changes took place. I hope that he will make it clear not only that further legislation will be needed to ensure that the LSC's powers do not transfer to another body but that those powers should not remain with the LSC. If the LSC is not funding colleges, it should not be the body regulating colleges either.
	The key move, which the Minister made clear, involves democratic accountability and parliamentary scrutiny, and the change in the Secretary of State's role in that respect is very welcome. The fact that the LSC must notify the Secretary of State of its actions and that the Secretary of State will be given the freedom to change and direct the LSC in a different way, with a loop involving MPs as well, provides the possibility of parliamentary scrutiny.
	I wonder whether the Minister will also place on record a point that he raised with me in private. He intends to use section 28(2) of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 to direct the LSC to include details of how it has used those powers in its annual report, thus ensuring not only that parliamentary scrutiny is available to MPs who have had the misfortune of seeing such powers used in their constituencies but that all MPs who have an interest in the issue can question the Secretary of State in his role as the accountable person in the House, where it is appropriate to do so.
	Finally, I am pleased that the Minister has placed on record the role of the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. I wonder whether he might elaborate on that role. Presumably, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families will become the relevant Secretary of State, once the machinery of government changes are implemented, but will that Secretary of State always be notified if the college involved does a substantial portion of its work in 16-to-19 education? What if all of its work is in the 16-to-19 area?
	I place it on record that I am grateful to the Minister for being willing to amend the clause. This issue has caused us great concern, rightly. I continue to have concerns about whether the clause is needed. However, as the Minister has moved so far, I shall certainly not oppose it today.

Bill Rammell: I am more than happy to give that commitment. That will help in the understanding of the debate and the Bill that we are considering.
	I shall clarify some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings in relation to the steps that the LSC must take when it intervenes. The LSC must give prior notice. At that stage, the Secretary of State can take action, but does not have to do so on receipt of such a notice. It is correct that the Secretary of State has a greater opportunity to scrutinise the LSC as it takes that action, and if he chooses, to stop the LSC taking such action.
	On another point that the hon. Gentleman raised, the comparison of the current powers of the Secretary of State to intervene and the proposed powers for the LSC, I want to place it explicitly on the record that the Bill does not empower the LSC to intervene in ways that the Secretary of State cannot do at present. Rather, it specifies that the power to give directions may include a direction to make collaboration arrangements. It also specifies that the LSC would not be able to direct a governing body to dismiss a senior postholder. Instead, it would be able to direct the governing body to initiate dismissal proceedings.
	The comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), the former Secretary of State for Wales, were exceedingly constructive. His point about nurturing the relationship between the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills and the Welsh Assembly Government is important. Devolution does not mean divorce. There is a continuing need for co-operation and overlap. I entirely take his point about dialogue. The Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) has recently had discussions with Jane Hutt about some of these matters. My right hon. Friend's important point about the need for effective scrutiny will have been heard.
	On scrutiny in general, it is important to make it clear that the Bill has been subject to scrutiny and the role of Welsh Ministers has been scrutinised. With reference to the exercise of the powers of intervention, the Welsh Assembly Minister will be subject to scrutiny by the Welsh Assembly. The comments that were made have been extremely constructive and helpful.

Laurence Robertson: I note that we have a little longer for this debate than might have been expected, but I assure the Minister that I do not intend to drag it out just for the sake of it. However, there are, of course, important issues to address, and I am pleased to have secured the debate for that reason. I thank Mr. Speaker for awarding it to me, and the Minister for attending today.
	My hon. Friends and colleagues from other seats in Gloucestershire—Forest of Dean, Cheltenham, Gloucester, Stroud and Cotswold—have all taken an interest in what I am discussing, although unfortunately they are not able to be here because of other pressures. They, too, have suffered in recent months, and I pay tribute to their work in fighting against the difficulties that we have experienced.
	I want to approach this debate in three parts. I want to consider what happened on 20 July and since, what is happening now and what should happen in the future. In June of this year, I remember visiting a number of people in my constituency and, by invitation, slightly beyond, to look at the difficulties they had experienced following floods in that month. I visited people who told me that they had lived in their properties for 40 years and never been flooded. There was some kind of warning there, I suppose. The storms were similar, although obviously those in July were a lot worse. There was a warning in June that there was a problem because places flooded that had never flooded before, and it was depressing to me to have to visit those people again in July, when they had been flooded for a second time.
	I suppose that 20 July started like any other day, but the rain came down very heavily. Perhaps it should not have, but it seemed to take us by surprise. The rain continued for a lot of the day, probably all of it, and people's journeys home became extremely difficult. A journey that should have taken me one hour took me four. The mobile phone network went down completely and it was impossible to phone home or make any arrangements. I was one of the lucky ones: many people did not get home at all. My house is not that far from the M5 motorway, and I know that people slept in their cars on the motorway, including police officers, who had no way of getting away from the situation. People slept in borough council offices, and some slept in public houses, which was probably the preferable option, but not one they would necessarily have chosen. It seemed to get worse.
	On the Saturday, there seemed to be a little respite, but water continued to come from the hills and down the rivers, and on Sunday, things got very much worse. As things progressed, the town of Tewkesbury got cut off and became an island, as probably the whole world knows—Tewkesbury is now world famous for the wrong reasons. I have to stress that other parts of my constituency were also very badly flooded. Part of the hospital at Tewkesbury had to be evacuated, the doctor's surgery was flooded and had to be evacuated, meaning that the doctors were displaced, and many businesses were closed. Of course, many people had to leave their homes; some of them had to be rescued from their top floor. It was a desperate situation. When we lost the water supply, we had to live off water supplied by bowsers—a word I had never come across before 20 July—and the filling of bowsers and the delivery of bottled water became a major issue.  [ Interruption. ] I am glad to welcome the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who has managed to make it to the debate.
	Tragically, and worst of all, during the next few days, three people lost their lives as a direct result of the flooding; Bramwell and Christopher Lane, and Mitchell Taylor were all killed. That was extremely tragic, but it could have been so much worse. We lost our mains water supply—some people lost it for up to three weeks—and as many as 350,000 properties were affected in this way. We very nearly lost our electricity supplies. It was estimated that up to 600,000 households could have lost electricity.
	At this point, I would like to congratulate the emergency services, particularly Gold Command, under the direction of Dr. Tim Brain, the chief constable of Gloucestershire. I would like to congratulate the armed forces, Tewkesbury borough council, parish councils and many others—particularly those individuals who helped rescue people and deliver bottled water. It really brought out the very best in 99 per cent. of people. There were no divisions and no party politics; everybody made a tremendous effort. I personally knew many people who worked hard, but there were many others whom I did not know and whom I will probably not meet again.
	Perhaps unusually for a politician, I would like to congratulate the media on their role, especially Radio Gloucestershire, a local radio station, which broadcast accurate and up-to-date information every minute. That was extremely helpful. Perhaps unusually again for a politician, I would like to thank and congratulate the supermarkets and those who supplied the bottled water.
	Most hon. Members realise the importance of their staff. I want especially to congratulate my constituency assistant, Mark Calway, who worked night and day to try to help people with their problems. Far be it from me, as a Conservative Member of Parliament, to try to brighten up the Prime Minister's week, but I must thank him for what he did. He showed a great deal of interest and I am not prepared to play party politics about the matter. His many interventions were welcome. I also thank and congratulate the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and everybody at every level, including those in Cobra and Gold Command, who tried to help alleviate the disaster. I am told that it was the biggest operation in peacetime Britain, and that is significant.

Laurence Robertson: I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and has made one of the most important points. I shall deal with that a little later, but I emphasise that he is right.
	The second part of my speech is about the current position. Tewkesbury and the surrounding areas have recovered well but many people are still living in caravans on their own drives, and will do so for many months. In a discussion with the chief constable this morning, I was reminded that they will have to eat their Christmas dinner in caravans unless they are fortunate enough to be invited elsewhere. Many people remain displaced from their homes. Businesses, especially shops, pubs and restaurants, lost much business. When we lost the water supply, restaurants could not prepare food properly and consequently lost an awful lot of business. However, I want to convey the message that, although some people believe that Tewkesbury was like New Orleans, it was not that bad. Tewkesbury was not affected in quite the same way and it is open for business. I hope that I am allowed to make that plug.
	Of course, people have still got to get their houses back together and make insurance claims. The process of claiming appears to have gone fairly smoothly—I have not heard many complaints about it—although it took time for assessors and others to come out. Given the scale of the problem, that was understandable, but matters are progressing.
	Concern has been expressed about future insurance premiums and the future availability of insurance. I want to spend some time considering that because, yesterday, the Association of British Insurers made the worrying statement that it could not guarantee insuring people against flooding in future because of the Chancellor's statement the other day and the lack of money, as the association put it, from him for the alleviation of floods. I hope that the Chancellor will provide enough money to guard against future problems, and I want to discuss shortly some of the things that I hope will be done.
	I am also a little concerned about the ABI's position, although I do not want to be too much against it. I asked the ABI what specific schemes it felt would not be able to go ahead because of the Government's position that it felt should go ahead. Again, I am not defending the Government at all, but I was a bit concerned this morning to receive an e-mail from the ABI that in answer—or non-answer—to my question said:
	"We do not have details of specific schemes that will now not go ahead."
	I am not defending the Government—I will say quite a few things that I want the Government to do—but I do not want the ABI to use the Government's position as a cop-out. That is not the ABI's role. Insurers take the premiums and they have to pay out. It will be difficult for people if they cannot get insurance. There might be some justifiable criticism of people or businesses who did not take out insurance, but if insurance is not available to them, that is a different proposition. I should like the Minister to address that concern.
	I come to part three of my speech: what do I think should happen in the future? We live on the confluence of two rivers in Tewkesbury. It is a beautiful place. We have the abbey and we have a lot going for us. The rivers brought a lot of trade in the past, but of course we recognise that Tewkesbury is on a floodplain and that the rivers flood frequently. The fields around Tewkesbury flood probably two, three or four times a year. That is not a problem; what is a problem is the kind of situation that we face currently.
	Although we accept that we live on a floodplain and that sometimes we will be flooded, people's primary concern now is that we should learn lessons from what happened. It is far too easy for the headlines to disappear, for people to forget about the situation and for nothing to happen. I hope that we will learn the lessons. I make no apology for returning to the fact that three people died in my constituency because of the flooding or that people beyond have suffered. We must learn the lessons. What do I think those lessons are? The biggest one is that we should not build houses or other buildings on or near floodplains. If we do that, the water obviously has nowhere to go or not as many places to go, whereas if the floodplain is a green field, the water can rest on it and eventually disappear. If there are buildings on that field, that cannot happen.
	One area of building in my constituency, in a place called Bredon Road, was part built and flooded. That was not a good calculation. In a written answer to my question number 146213, the Minister for Housing quoted planning policy statement 25, with regard to strategic flood risk assessments. That is welcome as far as it goes, but I do not think that it goes far enough. I know that the role of the Environment Agency has to some extent been strengthened on that point—I shall return to that—but the provision does not goes anywhere near far enough.
	I am also concerned about how we determine what constitutes a floodplain. When the Environment Secretary came to Tewkesbury he told me that the flooding that had occurred was far worse than the definitive map, which suggested where the flooding might take place if the 1947 floods were repeated. The flooding this time was worse. I had a meeting with somebody from the Environment Agency who suggested that if water lay beneath the surface of land, it was okay to build on. That is profoundly wrong and dangerous.
	There is currently an application, which will be with the Secretary of State any day now, at a village called Longford in my constituency, which is very close to Walham electric works, which almost flooded and which we almost lost. The appeal to the Secretary of State is by Hitchins and is to build some 600 houses on an area that floods and to which the access roads also flood. Surely that application must be turned down when it reaches the Secretary of State's office, otherwise we will have heard just empty words.

Laurence Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point.
	There are areas of Tewkesbury, such as the Wheatpieces estate and the Stonehills estate, of which people said, "Well, there you are, they didn't flood. It wasn't a problem." That misses the point entirely. The next estate, Priors Park estate, was very badly flooded. We are also losing gardens. Houses are being built on gardens, which are defined as brownfield sites, and that land loses the ability to soak up water.
	That raises the question of why so many houses are needed. I do not want to go through all the issues. We know about ageing populations, about couples separating, about people wanting more than one house, and about immigration—we have had net immigration of well over a million in the past 10 years. All those factors put pressure on the housing situation, and we have to think about this very sensibly.
	Unbelievably, there are proposals from the regional spatial strategy in my constituency to build thousands of houses north of Gloucester and north of Cheltenham. That is asking for trouble, and the proposal must be rejected. We must find a better way forward, and better places to put the houses. We cannot build thousands of houses in the areas that have suffered so badly over the past few weeks.
	When we have to build houses, the builders should have a greater responsibility to ensure that the drainage system is adequate. In answer to my parliamentary question number 146214, the Minister helpfully replied but his answer was not strong enough. Things need tightening up. We also need to ensure that ditches and drains are cleared regularly, and that they are repaired when necessary. I had some displaced people living with me for a while; they were delightful. They lived much higher up than me, but their house, unlike mine, had flooded because their drains did not work. In fact, they had worked in reverse and thrown the water out into the property. I accept that that was an exceptional time, but in many cases, the drains were simply inadequate and the ditches were not cleaned.
	We need to draw up a list of priority people and priority buildings, so that we can help more quickly in times of difficulty. I went for a walkabout on the Sunday, and I came across some sheltered accommodation. Nobody had been there, and water was surrounding the buildings. It was coming up through the floors of the flats, and we had to push people out in their wheelchairs to avoid what could have been a terrible situation. We then had to wait for ambulances and police cars to arrive. This place was called Lanes Court in Priors Park, the estate that I mentioned earlier. Nobody had been round to check up on it; it had not registered on anyone's radar screen. There was no emergency relief for those people.
	I tabled a parliamentary question on that subject—question number 152885—to which the Minister responded:
	"Under central guidance on the requirements of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, it is the responsibility of all the statutorily designated Category 1 responders, including local authorities, emergency services, Primary Care Trusts and the Environment Agency to identify and make plans to assist vulnerable people in any emergency."—[ Official Report, 26 July 2007; Vol. 463, c. 1523W.]
	Well, in spite of what I am sure were the best efforts of all involved, that did not happen. It certainly did happen to some extent, but many people, such as those whom I have just mentioned, did not get rescued until they happened to be stumbled across. Many old and disabled people had bottled water brought to their houses, but that did not happen across the board. There were still many vulnerable people.
	The fire and rescue service made an absolutely tremendous effort, but I do not think that it was quite prepared for a disaster of this scale in terms of the number of its officers who have been trained to carry out rescue operations in water. Some are trained to do that and did an excellent job. Others also did an excellent job, but we need to reflect more on whether there are enough fire rescue officers trained in that particular line of service.
	I spoke to the chief constable of Gloucestershire this morning about the tri-service centre. It is pity that the hon. Member for Stroud is no longer in his place, as I hoped that he would agree with me about it. On 20 July, the emergency services people were able to talk to each other immediately at the operational level. Nothing needed to be set up: they managed the emergency very well indeed and it would not have been as effective if it had had to be managed regionally. The local emergency people all knew the local council people, people from the utilities, MPs and so forth. It is interesting to note that when the merger of police forces was first discussed, relevant documents observed that a force as small as Gloucestershire's would not be able to handle an emergency on this scale. In fact, the force handled it very well indeed. I thus make a plea for the tri-service centre to be retained. It is working well and should be allowed to continue to do so.
	As to securing water and electricity supplies, which the hon. Member for Stroud mentioned, we have to ensure that the Mythe water works, located close to my home, is protected. We cannot allow hundreds of thousands of people to lose their drinking water again. In respect of the Walham electricity works—one sub-station apparently serves 600,000—it cannot be right to put people into such a vulnerable position. I understand that Hesco bastions, which are protective borders, have been put around the Mythe works on a temporary basis, with the possibility of them becoming permanent, but I have to say that this is not rocket science. It should be simple to provide those protections, which must become permanent at Mythe, Walham and elsewhere.
	We also need to secure a network of alternative supplies. It is strange that so many people who could lose their water supplies are dependent on just one service or one water treatment plant. When the Prime Minister went there during the crisis, his first remarks were something like, "This is rather an old building or an old service station, isn't it?" Well, he had a good point. The plant usually works very well and the people employed there work hard, but so many people's water should not be dependent on one particular water treatment plant and the same applies to electricity.
	I want to touch on the role of Severn Trent. It is perhaps understandable that it was totally overwhelmed by what happened. However, it operates—I suppose inevitably—as a monopoly, so it is in a different position. People cannot choose to go elsewhere for their water. A great deal of anger was directed at Severn Trent: some of it may not have been justified, but I can certainly understand quite a lot of it. I suggest that Severn Trent should be more a part of the community and should update its emergency planning. There was a tremendous effort in Tewkesbury to get bowsers and bottles of water to everybody. I believe that we ended up with most of the available bowsers in the country, so what would have happened if there had been a similar emergency somewhere else in the country? All the water companies need to be aware of what can happen and ensure that they can respond to these situations more strongly if they occur again.
	I come on to the Environment Agency. Some years ago, the Environment Agency was monitoring a chemical treatment plant, operated by Cleansing Service Group and based in Sandhurst in my constituency. It was watching it so closely that the whole thing blew up one day and it simply did not carry out its job properly. I have many criticisms of the Environment Agency and I shall run through a few issues that are linked to it. If they are not currently its responsibility, perhaps they should be.
	I have already mentioned drainage, but I want to touch on the responsibility for brooks, rivers, waterways and drains. In answer to my parliamentary question No. 148307, the Minister said:
	"Drainage is a complex issue and responsibility rests with water and sewerage companies, the Environment Agency, local authorities and private owners."—[ Official Report, 16 July 2007; Vol. 463, c. 9W.]
	It is too complicated—too many issues fall between two stools. The responsibility needs to be clearly defined.
	The Environment Agency has become a statutory consultee in planning applications. That is not strong enough. It needs to have a much greater say in whether certain planning applications are granted. It needs a better and faster warning system: the Environment Agency claims to have warned many thousands of people, but many people were not warned about what was coming. Farmers were particularly affected, and while I pay tribute to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and National Farmers Union for their excellent work in getting water to many livestock, there was a big problem with the warning system, which needs to be examined.
	Spending on specific national flood defence projects is necessary, but individual flood defences also need to be up to scratch. The Environment Agency needs more responsibility, more powers, adequate funding and more confidence to sort out problems, or else it needs scrapping. As it stands, it serves no useful purpose; we cannot leave it as it is.
	We heard a lot about the weather that led to such problems being unprecedented. I shall steal a phrase from the chief constable of Gloucestershire—I warned him that I would—who was the head of gold command. He said that if such weather happens again, it will not be unprecedented; we will have gone through it before, in July this year. I am glad to welcome to the Chamber the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper), who also suffered and worked hard during these difficulties. I thank him for offering to help me out when it was difficult for me to be in three or four places at once.
	The weather might have been unprecedented this time, but if it happens again, it will not be unprecedented. It might have been a once-in-150-years event. We are told that the effects of climate change will be severe, so we cannot take the view that it will not happen for another 150 years. Heaven forbid, it could happen tomorrow, next week, next month or next year—perhaps it will not happen for another 150 years, but we simply cannot take the chance.
	As we know, Tewkesbury is an area that will flood, but let us not make it worse than it needs to be. Let us do everything that we can to lessen and mitigate the damage of any future heavy rainfall. More than anything, people who have suffered, and are still suffering, want to see lessons learned. Please let us learn those lessons.

Mark Harper: Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will be very brief. As I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) has covered a number of the matters that I shall raise, I beg your forgiveness if I am repetitive. I apologise for not being present at the start of the debate; I was serving on a Public Bill Committee.
	Given that a number of my constituents were affected by the flooding, I want to record my thanks to all the emergency services, and the armed forces, for the tremendous work that they did. I know my hon. Friend agrees that although the loss of life was tragic for the families and individuals directly concerned, we have the emergency services to thank for the fact that it was not very much greater. The way in which our emergency services in Gloucestershire, with gold command based at the tri-service centre, worked so closely together demonstrated the success of that model, and I hope that the lessons learned inquiry will make recommendations to the Government that will make them think again about the attempt to regionalise fire control.
	Those of us whose constituencies were affected by the flooding welcomed the fact that Ministers were responsive throughout the recess and kept Members properly informed. We were able to question them on what was going on, which gave us a valuable opportunity to raise issues and secure action on a number of matters that affected us locally. I also thank Ministers for the £10 million that they have given Gloucestershire county council to help with the repair of roads that were damaged across the county—but having thanked the Minister for the down-payment, I should remind him that another £17 million is needed for further repairs. I know that his colleagues in the Department for Transport are working with officials from the county council to settle the details, and I hope that the money will be forthcoming.
	I want to make two more points. The first concerns council tax. I am aware that the Department has provided money for a number of the authorities concerned. Tewkesbury borough council, part of which covers my constituency, has used the money very quickly. Much of it has been used directly to help constituents and to defray some of the cost. The Minister might consider encouraging the Valuation Office Agency to be as flexible as possible where constituents have suffered property damage.
	A case in my constituency is being examined, and I hope that the right decision will be made. My constituents have been unable to live in their main residence, but because they are occupying a caravan on the site they are having to pay the full council tax on the property. That is clearly not appropriate. To be fair to the Minister, I should add that the Valuation Office Agency is considering the case. I hope that it will be able to observe the state of the property, and will charge the appropriate council tax for occupation of the caravan. I know that Ministers have been flexible when such issues have arisen in the past, and I hope that they will be so in this instance.
	I raise my second point not necessarily in expectation of action in a specific case, but in the hope that Ministers may, as part of their response to the lessons learned inquiry, consider the rules governing utility companies and loss of water supply. In Gloucestershire a number of residents across the county were without mains water for a significant period. Because of the exceptional nature of the event, it has been decided that the compensation scheme, which would normally require Severn Trent Water to compensate both domestic and business users for the loss of their supply, will not take effect. Severn Trent Water has made a payment to local authorities in lieu of that, but it will not surprise the Minister to find out that that amount is significantly less than what would have been due under the scheme. It may be worth looking at whether it is appropriate that the compensation scheme does not operate in a case where a significant number of consumers have been affected.
	To add insult to injury, Severn Trent Water is not even considering not charging them for water supply during the period for which they were without water. Constituents will have to pay their full annual bill. For a significant period, they were greatly inconvenienced. They would welcome the Government looking again at that matter.
	Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise those issues and to put those concerns on the record. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in reply.

Phil Woolas: It is extremely appropriate that we have this Adjournment debate in the first week of the return of Parliament. The last Adjournment debate before the summer recess was on flooding. I was grateful to Mr. Speaker for the opportunity to reply to that debate. I want to put a few, I hope, serious points on the record.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and I want to thank him, because my experience throughout the summer, during the many meetings, telephone conference calls and visits, and in reading letters and other correspondence, was that he acted with due diligence on behalf of his constituents. He criticised the Government or the authorities when it was helpful to his constituents and not when it was only helpful to him. He asked for what we could give him but did not ask for things that we could not give him. He behaved as an entirely responsible Member. If I were his constituent, I would be very proud of him. I would not say that I would vote for him, because that would bring party politics into it, but the serious point is that I would like to put that on the record. It says in  Dod's  Parliamentary Companion that the hon. Gentleman has run six marathons. He must be a Lancastrian to have such stamina. I seriously congratulate him on the role that he played.
	I said in the Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall that, if ever there was proof of the case for single Member constituency Members of Parliament, it was the flooding events recently. Members of Parliament for constituencies across the political spectrum throughout our country were able to solve problems on behalf of their constituents. I hope that Ministers were able to play their part, too.
	The Minister for Local Government was appointed as the Minister with responsibility for flood recovery in circumstances that would have made the late Lord Howell proud. He has done a sterling job. He has ensured that the flood recovery effort has carried on. Indeed, I think that we have had seven ministerial meetings, the latest of which was yesterday. Officials and Ministers from across the Whitehall Departments met, long after the national media, although not the local media, had lost interest. I thank also the flood recovery officials group, or FROG—a horrible acronym. It has been working very hard throughout the period; it is still working hard now.
	I pay tribute also to the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper). May I, perhaps unusually, answer his points first, because that will form the unscripted bit of my reply? I hope that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury and indeed my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Claire Ward), the Whip, will allow me to do that, because we have a bit more time than we would otherwise have had.
	The hon. Member for Forest of Dean makes the point about gold command, and he is right. Built into the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 is the philosophy of lessons learned. Part of the approach of the professionals is always to ask for criticism, in order that they can learn from individual circumstances. It has been the endeavour of the Government that support for the civil contingencies procedure should be all-party, which is why we involve Opposition spokespersons in the briefings and so on. It does not work without public resilience and therefore requires an all-party approach.
	The gold command structure is, on the whole, working. The experience from the floods in June and July was that we were a lot better off with that structure than we would have been without it. That is not to say that we cannot learn lessons, as the hon. Member for Forest of Dean says. I hope that we will be able to persuade him of the virtue of the regional fire control centres. As he knows, 999 is regional already and the idea of the regional centres is to make improvements. The co-ordination of kit and equipment—in this instance, in the floods and at other incidents such as Buncefield—has been made better by the regional control centres. I hope that he will be persuaded over the months of the benefits of that.
	The hon. Gentleman was gracious enough to thank Ministers for their involvement, and I thank him for that. On the question of money, he again graciously acknowledged the allocation so far. The Minister for Local Government has been incredibly diligent in his approach and is leading the UK request to the EU solidarity fund. We also have the Bellwin scheme—created, I think, by Lord Bellwin. He is the only Minister to have anything complimentary named after him.
	The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point about the Valuation Office Agency. That matter came up in one of the conferences with MPs and I shall take it up. If someone is living in a caravan in their own grounds and being charged when they would not be if they were living in a caravan not on their own grounds, that suggests that the hon. Gentleman—I am anxious not to make commitments that I cannot fulfil—has a point. The loss of water supply—we discussed that yesterday—is an ongoing issue.
	The Minister for Local Government, the Secretary of State and other Ministers including myself visited many areas across the country during the unprecedented flooding and saw for ourselves how destructive, distressing and, on many occasions, frightening the flooding has been. The debate gives me the opportunity to echo the words of the hon. Member for Forest of Dean in praising the magnificent response of those affected. No civil resilience planning works without public resilience, which means that having confidence in the authorities is essential.
	There are many stories and they will be documented over the years, but I want to put our appreciation on the record. I include in that the utility companies, which have been criticised but whose individual employees went the extra mile, as has been acknowledged. We know that the recovery from the impact of flooding is long and arduous and continues long after the media news reports have finished. I would like to thank BBC local radio—I know that the Secretary of State has done so on record with the BBC—as well as commercial radio, which played an important role. Their compilation of reports was hugely important in giving information, not just in reporting news.
	The good news is that the comprehensive funding package of up to £57 million to assist flood-affected regions and to help those in greatest need, including funding for schools, transport and businesses, has been put in place. Over £2.5 million of flood recovery money has been provided to Gloucestershire and we have given local authorities the flexibility to decide what to do with that money based on local circumstances. That is almost as important as the amount of money given.
	In addition, Gloucestershire will be given at least £10 million for highways works and more than £1 million for schools and children's services affected by the floods. The South West of England Regional Development Agency also has a business recovery scheme. Grants of up to £2,500 are available to small and medium-sized enterprises, and, to date, almost £1m in grants has been allocated to businesses. The generosity of the public and businesses must also be acknowledged; I understand that they have so far donated almost £800,000 to the Gloucestershire flood relief fund, which will help those who have suffered hardship as a result of flooding.
	My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government is leading a co-ordinated effort across Government to ensure that we do as much as we can to assist those in the flooded areas. Our message is that they are not forgotten. A meeting yesterday to look in detail at the problems was attended by officials of more than 25 Departments and agencies, and we continue that work.
	Let me repeat the point about the exceptional weather. Rainfall in the constituency of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury was the highest since records began in 1766. The flood warning I received in my ministerial box the evening before warned of severe floods in central and southern England, but it is simply not possible to give warnings of conditions of the severity that his constituency suffered—which created dangerous circumstances and, tragically, resulted in loss of life.
	Measures are required to respond to and manage sudden increases in water flow: putting in place defences and better drainage; warning of flooding before it happens so people can prepare; and reacting quickly and effectively when it does occur, as it inevitably will from time to time, and our water management infrastructure is overwhelmed beyond its design capacity. We must also have procedures in place to minimise distress, to avoid injury and loss of life, to provide immediate rescue services and help for those whose homes have been made uninhabitable, and to maintain essential services. We witnessed in Gloucestershire the enormous effort people made to operate those procedures successfully.
	In the longer term, we must look at how we can avoid making the problem worse, especially given the impact climate change will have in terms of rainfall levels and increasing the frequency and intensity of downpours. It is not possible to say that there was a direct causal link between climate change and the events in July in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but it is highly likely that there was a connection, and the case for climate change is proven—as, incidentally, the judge in the recent Al Gore film case recognised.
	Physical defences will continue to be the most important mechanism that we have for protecting lives and property from the risks of flooding and erosion, but we recognise that building bigger and ever higher is not sustainable. Our cross-Government "Making Space for Water" strategy development programme is looking not only at how we optimise flood management spend, but at other ways in which we can take an in-the-round and sustainable approach to the management of risk from all forms of flooding—from rivers, the sea, groundwater, surface run-off and sewers. We are looking at, and delivering, a broad range of management measures.
	We are aiming to improve management of the risk nationally by giving the Environment Agency a strategic overview of all forms of flooding in close partnership with local authorities, the water companies and other bodies. The hon. Gentleman made a point about co-ordination. The point is to have co-ordination, rather than the idea—I am not saying that he suggested this—that we give all control and ownership of the problem to one authority. We think better co-ordination is needed.
	We shall look at the review that is being carried out by Sir Michael Pitt. Although I was not involved in his appointment, I could not have chosen a better person to carry out that review for us, and I am sure that co-ordination is one of the things that he is examining.